Abhishek Raja "Ram" | Revolutionary Raja Ram ✓

@abhishekrajaram · New Delhi · joined 25 Jan 2012

We handle Tax Litigation Indirect & Direct so that You can grow your Business | Follow for SOP, Checklist, Draft Template | Author* Speaker* Leader | 9810638155

102 019Followers

1 111Following

38 772Posts total

8.5KViews on collected posts

Latest posts

Abhishek Raja "Ram" | Revolutionary Raja Ram ✓@abhishekrajaram8 Sep

❓ Can a writ be relegated to statutory remedy when a GST notice prima facie appears time-barred? https://t.co/zfqEVVDF2Y

929 views · 1 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Abhishek Raja "Ram" | Revolutionary Raja Ram ✓@abhishekrajaram8 Sep

Tried 80's look and Chatgpt gave me books and national seminar in background. https://t.co/pSUzrshRuq

1.6K views · 23 likes · 0 reposts · 0 replies Open on X →

Abhishek Raja "Ram" | Revolutionary Raja Ram ✓@abhishekrajaram8 Sep

Q. Whether the Principal be made liable for tax payable on the goods supplied by the Agent? 1.5K views · 1 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Abhishek Raja "Ram" | Revolutionary Raja Ram ✓@abhishekrajaram8 Sep

🚨 TAX ALERT: Reassessment Quashed Where Approval Under Section 151 Was Granted by the Wrong Authority 🔹 What Happened: For AY 2018-19, the Assessee’s reassessment was initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, approval under Section 151 h

997 views · 4 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Abhishek Raja "Ram" | Revolutionary Raja Ram ✓@abhishekrajaram8 Sep

The tax authorities invoked Section 87 of the CGST Act, arguing that tax liabilities relating to the period before a merger could continue to be recovered. The HC rejected this argument, holding that Section 87 did not permit the department to issue a show-cause notice in the 171 views · 0 likes · 0 reposts · 0 replies Open on X →

Abhishek Raja "Ram" | Revolutionary Raja Ram ✓@abhishekrajaram8 Sep

An adjudication order followed in January 2025. Vi approached the Bombay HC, contending that the proceedings were legally unsustainable since VMSL had ceased to exist several years earlier as a result of the merger. In April, a Bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe 173 views · 0 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Abhishek Raja "Ram" | Revolutionary Raja Ram ✓@abhishekrajaram8 Sep

The GST authorities were informed about the merger. Despite this, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence issued a show-cause notice to VMSL in August 2024, seeking 363 crore under theCGST Act, 2017, besides a penalty. The tax department alleged that the transfer of the tower 71 views · 0 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Abhishek Raja "Ram" | Revolutionary Raja Ram ✓@abhishekrajaram8 Sep

The case relates to a 363 crore GST demand arising from the transfer of VMSL’s telecommunications tower business to ATC Telecom Infrastructure in 2017. The business was transferred as a going concern through a slump sale. VMSL subsequently merged with Vodafone India (Vi) and Idea 233 views · 0 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Abhishek Raja "Ram" | Revolutionary Raja Ram ✓@abhishekrajaram8 Sep

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and N Vinod Chandran dismissed the Centre’s challenge to the HC ruling. During the hearing, the Bench questioned the basis for initiating tax proceedings against an entity that no longer existed after amalgamation. 103 views · 1 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Abhishek Raja "Ram" | Revolutionary Raja Ram ✓@abhishekrajaram8 Sep

SC drops Centre's call to revive 363 crore Vodafone GST demand The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a Bombay High Court (HC) decision that had struck down goods and services tax (GST) proceedings against Vodafone Mobile Services (VMSL), holding that the company had 2.7K views · 9 likes · 2 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Against accounts of the same size

10 posts from the last 90 days, next to the 100K–1M follower range. below its peers on both reach and engagement.

Median views581this account6 239median for 100K–1M

Reach, %0.57%this account1.72%median for 100K–1M

Engagement, %0.47%this account1.10%median for 100K–1M

Metric	This account	Median for 100K–1M	Ratio
Median views per post	581	6 239	0.09×
Reach (views ÷ followers)	0.57%	1.72%	0.33×
Engagement rate	0.47%	1.10%	0.43×

Others in this range → Compare with another account → How these benchmarks are built →

Growth & engagement

How the posts we collected actually performed: views and reaction rate post by post, what the audience did with them, and where the follower count goes.

Views per post

2.7K8 Sep

103

233

173

171

997

1.5K

1.6K

929

Last 10 collected posts, oldest on the left. The scale is logarithmic: one post can outrun the rest a hundred times over.

Engagement rate per post

0.44%8 Sep

1.94%

0.43%

1.41%

0.58%

0.00%

0.50%

0.14%

1.43%

0.22%

Reactions — likes, reposts, replies and quotes — divided by views. Median for 100K–1M accounts is 1.10%.

What the audience does

Likes67.2%39 in total

Reposts3.4%2 in total

Replies13.8%8 in total

Bookmarks15.5%9 in total

Share of every reaction we collected for this account. Replies mean argument, reposts mean endorsement, bookmarks mean the post was worth keeping.

The follower curve appears once this account has two daily snapshots — we take one a day, and this one is on its first.

Latest posts

Against accounts of the same size

Growth & engagement

Views per post

Engagement rate per post

What the audience does

Similar accounts